DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim of benefit to Provisional Patent Application No. 63/444,262 filed on 02/09/2023.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 2/9/2024 have been considered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-17 are directed towards a machine. Claims 18-20 are directed towards a process. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 1-20).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
Taking Claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
request a consent input from a user indicative of consent by the user to be contacted regarding a product or service offer for a property through a consent request page of a selection form;
receive the consent input from the user on the consent request page of the selection form;
responsive to receiving the consent input, determine whether the user is associated with a lead profile;
responsive to determining the user is not associated with a lead profile for the user, generate a lead profile for the user comprising data associated with the user and the consent input;
send a message to the user, wherein the message presents the user with an option of being connected to an agent to discuss the product or service offer for the property;
responsive to the user selecting the option of being connected to the agent, route the user to the agent based on the lead profile; and
responsive to the user not selecting the option of being connected to the agent, send one or more further messages presenting the user with the option of being connected to the agent on a pre-determined schedule until (i) a pre-determined duration of time expires or (ii) the user selects the option of being connected to the agent within the pre-determined duration of time.
Claim 18 recites the same limitations believed to be abstract as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites a method. Claim 20 recites the same limitations believed to be abstract as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites requesting a consent input from a user when the user is at a referral location associated with a property.
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites the abstract idea of lead routing. These recited limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" Grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to commercial interactions of sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1, 18 and 20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Claim 1 recites additional elements beyond the judicial exception(s), including An Artificial Intelligence (AI) system comprising: one or more processors; one or more memory components communicatively coupled to the one or more processors; and machine readable instructions stored in the one or more memory components that cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors; a digital selection form; and a mobile device of the user. Claim 18 recites the same additional elements as recited in claim 1, and additionally recites an artificially intelligent computer implemented method. Claim 20 recites the same additional elements as recited in claims 1 and 18, and additionally recites a digital selection form displayed on a mobile device.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 18 and 20 specifying that the abstract idea of lead routing is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claims 1, 18 and 20 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 1, 18 and 20 recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 1, 18 and 20 are “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, the instant claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements of An Artificial Intelligence (AI) system comprising: one or more processors; one or more memory components communicatively coupled to the one or more processors; and machine readable instructions stored in the one or more memory components that cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors; a digital selection form; and a mobile device of the user; an artificially intelligent computer implemented method; and a digital selection form displayed on a mobile device amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 2-17 and 19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 2-3, 5-9, 12, 14-16 and 19, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 18 and 20, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claims 1, 18 and 20. Therefore, claims 2-3, 5-9, 12, 14-16 and 19 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
As for dependent claims 4, 10-11, 13 and 17, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in independent claims 1, 18 and 20. Additionally, they recite the following additional limitations:
responsive to the user selecting the option of being connected to the agent, route the user to the agent based on the lead profile and an agent profile of the agent to initiate a voice call session;
wherein interactive communication comprises scan of a code or selection of a link via the mobile device to generate the consent input on a graphical user interface of the mobile device, and wherein non-interactive communication comprises a geospatial message sent to the mobile device based on sensing the user within a geospatial area of the referral location;
wherein the code comprises a QR code, and wherein the link is embedded on a digital platform associated with the referral location;
link the lead profile of the user to a user profile associated with an application, an external database, or both, for an entity, wherein the application is at least one of a web or mobile-based application; and
request the consent input from the user through a consent box to be selected by the user or a digital signature box to be signed by the user on the consent request page of the digital selection form.
The additional elements of a voice call session; scan of a code or selection of a link via the mobile device on a graphical interface; a geospatial message sent to the mobile device; wherein the link is embedded on a digital platform; an application, an external database, or both, wherein the application is at least one of a web or mobile-based application; and a digital signature box are all recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception in a generic technological environment. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 1-20 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 12-14, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S Patent Application No. 2011/0184766 A1 to Virdhagriswaran, hereinafter Virdhagriswaran, in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2020/0311768 A1 to Desai et al., hereinafter Desai.
Regarding Claim 1, Virdhagriswaran discloses An Artificial Intelligence (AI) system comprising ([0021][0054]):
one or more processors ([0024-0029]);
one or more memory components communicatively coupled to the one or more processors ([0024-0029]); and
machine readable instructions stored in the one or more memory components that cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors ([0024-0029]):
request a consent input from a user indicative of consent by the user to be contacted regarding a product or service offer for a property through a consent request page of a digital selection form [0072] a potential insurance prospect may visit the webpage of the insurer, hosted/served on the web server 110, and select an online option to price a quote for an insurance policy… In step 704, the computer system 102 gathers relevant information about the prospect… the computer system 102 may instruct the web server 110 to present an online form to the potential insurance prospect after selecting the option to price a quote for a policy; [0074] The online webpage 800 may be presented to the online prospect via web server 110… the computer system 102 may instruct the web server 110 to present an online form to the prospect, which may include the data entry region 802… the web server 110 may operate in conjunction with customer service representative system 108 to launch an online call so that a representative can interact with the prospect… see [0001] insurance coverage includes property coverage; [0040] covered product lines including building coverage);
receive the consent input from the user on the consent request page of the digital selection form ([0073] In step 706, the computer system 102 uses the prospect information gathered in step 704 to determine prospect rankings and/or scores);
responsive to receiving the consent input, determine whether the user is associated with a lead profile ([0034] In step 304, the computer system 102 receives information about the prospects on the prospect list received in step 302; [0035] In step 306, the computer system 102 determines an underwriting affinity score for each prospect on the prospect list received in step 302; [0054] the computer system 102 determines the underwriting affinity score by using a predictive model to determine the probability of issue of a policy for a single product line (e.g., for a new prospect) or of a policy for a multiple product line (e.g., for a prospect that already has an existing policy for a product line)… see [0072] if the prospect has a pre-existing account or policy with the insurance company, the prospect may log into an online account or profile via the webpage);
responsive to determining the user is not associated with a lead profile for the user, generate a lead profile for the user comprising data associated with the user and the consent input ([0054] the computer system 102 determines the underwriting affinity score by using a predictive model to determine the probability of issue of a policy for a single product line (e.g., for a new prospect) or of a policy for a multiple product line (e.g., for a prospect that already has an existing policy for a product line)… see [0020] methods for identifying new leads; [0072] the computer system 102 compiles prospect lists and information from one or more sources including internal databases, and the compiled prospect lists and information are used by the computer system 102 or a predictive model to score and/or rank the prospects) (Information regarding prospects/leads that is stored in a database and retrieved from said database for subsequent analysis is a lead profile);
send a message to a mobile device of the user, wherein the message presents the user with an option of being connected to an agent to discuss the product or service offer for the property ([0074] The computer system 102 may also control the presentation of the notification region 804… the notification region 804 may include one or more links… if the prospect clicks on the notification region 804, the web server 110 may operate in conjunction with customer service representative system 108 to launch an online call or chat application, so that a live customer service representative can interact with the prospect); and
responsive to the user selecting the option of being connected to the agent, route the user to the agent based on the lead profile ([0074] if the prospect clicks on the notification region 804, the web server 110 may operate in conjunction with customer service representative system 108 to launch an online call or chat application, so that a live customer service representative can interact with the prospect);
But does not explicitly disclose responsive to receiving the consent input, determining whether the user is associated with a lead profile; and responsive to the user not selecting the option of being connected to the agent, sending one or more further messages presenting the user with the option of being connected to the agent on a pre-determined schedule until (i) a pre-determined duration of time expires or (ii) the user selects the option of being connected to the agent within the pre-determined duration of time.
Desai, on the other hand, teaches responsive to receiving the consent input, determining whether the user is associated with a lead profile ([0025] the lead interaction generator 108 of the marketplace 104 may determine that a user interacts with one or more components, products, and/or services of the marketplace 104 or otherwise shows an interest on or more components, products, and/or services of the marketplace 104. Thus, the lead interaction generator 108 of the marketplace 104 may provide user information as lead information 212… The interaction information 216 may include information indicative of one or more products or services that the user, prior to becoming a lead, interacted with at the marketplace 104; [0027] The lead filter 244 may operate on the enriched lead information and may perform a “first pass” type of filtering to determine if the lead is actually a lead worth pursuing… based on a product identifier and/or service identifier received in the lead information 212, the lead qualifier may determine if the lead is already associated with the product and/or service of interest and/or if the lead is already working with an inside sales professional); and
responsive to the user not selecting the option of being connected to the agent, sending one or more further messages presenting the user with the option of being connected to the agent on a pre-determined schedule until (i) a pre-determined duration of time expires or (ii) the user selects the option of being connected to the agent within the pre-determined duration of time ([0024] The lead nurturing system 124 may automatically send a message to the lead to imitate or otherwise impersonate a human response… if a response from the lead is not received at the lead nurturing system 124, the lead nurturing system 124 may send a follow-up message at one or more specified time intervals until either a number of messages sent exceeds a threshold or the lead responds to the message.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran, responsive to receiving the consent input, determining whether the user is associated with a lead profile, and responsive to the user not selecting the option of being connected to the agent, sending one or more further messages presenting the user with the option of being connected to the agent on a pre-determined schedule until (i) a pre-determined duration of time expires or (ii) the user selects the option of being connected to the agent within the pre-determined duration of time, as taught by Desai, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Virdhagriswaran, to include the teachings of Desai, in order for marketplaces to maintain the interest of potential clients in products and services, and take advantage of opportunities to turn users into clients (Desai, [0001-0002]).
Regarding Claim 2, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: responsive to determining the user is associated with a lead profile for the user, update the lead profile with the consent input from the user.
Desai, on the other hand, teaches wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: responsive to determining the user is associated with a lead profile for the user, update the lead profile with the consent input from the user ([0026] The marketplace interface portion 236 may include a lead enrichment module 240… The lead enrichment module 240 may identify additional information associated with the lead information 212. For example, the lead information 212 may include user identification information, such as a username. However, the lead information 212 may be lacking contact information, such as an email address. Thus, the lead enrichment module 240 may enrich the lead information 212 by querying one or more systems and/or storage locations to determine contact information, such as an email address, that may be associated with the lead identification information provided in the lead information 212 in order to access storage to enrich the lead).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran, responsive to determining the user is associated with a lead profile for the user, update the lead profile with the consent input from the user, as taught by Desai, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: receive a preferred time of contact from the user via the consent input ([0060] the computer system 102 determines a favorable context score for each prospect on the prospect list received in step 302. A prospect context score represents whether an offer of a new or updated insurance policy to the prospect, if made, would be made at an appropriate time… For example, offering a new or updated insurance policy to a prospect when the prospect has a preexisting insurance policy that is about to expire may be timely, whereas the same offer made at a time when the prospect's preexisting policy still has a term of several months may not be timely); and
send the message to the user during the preferred time of contact ([0062] The timeliness and warmness parameters are then combined to form the prospect context score; [0075] if the computer system 102 determines that the prospect score/rank is high (i.e., a high likelihood that the insurer will write a new/updated policy and/or a high likelihood that the prospect will accept the policy), the notifications/links that appear in the notification region 804 may be selected to facilitate the policy issuance process, such as an invitation to be connected directly to a customer service representative, via a voice call or an online chat).
Regarding Claim 7, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses providing the message to the user based on at least one of the following:
a user location ([0035] the computer system 102 determines an underwriting affinity score for each prospect… the underwriting affinity score is based on prospect parameters including business location (in the form of addresses or zip codes); [0075] if the computer system 102 determines that the prospect score/rank is high (i.e., a high likelihood that the insurer will write a new/updated policy and/or a high likelihood that the prospect will accept the policy), the notifications/links that appear in the notification region 804 may be selected to facilitate the policy issuance process, such as an invitation to be connected directly to a customer service representative);
a product the user has recently purchased;
a referral location at which the user navigated to the consent request page;
a user age;
a user marital status; or
combinations thereof (Only one of the limitations must be present, according to the claim reciting “based on at least one of the following);
But does not explicitly disclose tailor content of the message and the one or more further messages to the user.
Desai, on the other hand, teaches tailor content of the message and the one or more further messages to the user ([0028] based on the lead information 212, a specific communication template, such as an email template may be chosen. Moreover, the email template may be customized to the product and/or service determined to be of interest by the lead; [0031] the response follow-up module 226 may determine an optical schedule to send a second and/or third follow-up message. The second and/or third follow-up message may utilize a different template for example and may reference the sending of the first initial message).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran, tailor content of the message and the one or more further messages to the user, as taught by Desai, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein a user profile for the user within an entity database is linked to the lead profile through a common phone number, name, or address of the user ([0033] the computer system 102 receives a prospect list or list of potential business insurance prospects compiled from one or more sources. These sources include, without limitation, internal databases, external databases (e.g. government databases), leads provided by partners (e.g., payroll services) or other third-party agents; [0034] the computer system 102 may cross-reference the prospects on the prospect list with other internal and external information sources, such as internal databases, credit agencies, or third party agents, to obtain prospect information).
Regarding Claim 13, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI messaging system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: link the lead profile of the user to a user profile associated with an application, an external database, or both, for an entity, wherein the application is at least one of a web or mobile-based application ([0033] the computer system 102 receives a prospect list or list of potential business insurance prospects compiled from one or more sources. These sources include, without limitation, internal databases, external databases (e.g. government databases), leads provided by partners (e.g., payroll services) or other third-party agents; [0034] the computer system 102 may cross-reference the prospects on the prospect list with other internal and external information sources, such as internal databases, credit agencies, or third party agents, to obtain prospect information) (Only one of an application and an external database must be present, according to the claim reciting “…or both”); and
grant the agent access to the user profile to view information about the user stored within the user profile ([0069] FIG. 5 depicts a user interface 500 shown to a customer service representative processing an inbound prospect call… The user interface 500 includes a prospect score notification region 502 and a recommended action region 504. The prospect score notification region 502 displays the combined prospect score/ranking of the calling prospect… see [0033-0035] information gathered from external databases is used to determine scores for prospects; [Fig. 5] depicting the customer service representative user interface, which displays additional prospect information such as name).
Regarding Claim 14, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 13.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein the entity is an insurance company ([0021] The insurance computer network 100 includes an insurance company 101 with an insurer computer system 102).
Regarding Claim 16, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein machine readable instructions further cause the AI messaging system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: route the user to the agent based on one or more demographics associated with the user and one or more metrics associated with the agent ([0035-0036] a prospect’s underwriting affinity score is based on demographics including the industry of the prospect, and the location of the prospect; [0066] if the prospect indicates that the reason for calling is to apply for a particular type of insurance policy, the computer system 108 may route the prospect to the customer service agent with the best record of issuing that particular type of insurance policy).
Claim 18 is directed to an artificially intelligent computer implemented method. Claim 18 recites limitations that are substantially parallel in nature to those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards an artificial intelligence (AI) system. The system of Virdhagriswaran/Desai teaches the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Virdhagriswaran further discloses an artificially intelligent computer implemented method (Virdhagriswaran: [0020][0054]). Claim 18 is therefore rejected for the reasons set forth above in claim 1 and in this paragraph.
Claim 19 recites a method comprising substantially similar limitations as claim 2. The claim is rejected under substantially similar grounds as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 20, Virdhagriswaran discloses An artificially intelligent computer implemented method, the method comprising ([0020][0054]):
requesting a consent input from a user when the user is at a referral location (webpage) associated with a property ([0072] a potential insurance prospect may visit the webpage of the insurer, hosted/served on the web server 110, and select an online option to price a quote for an insurance policy… In step 704, the computer system 102 gathers relevant information about the prospect… the computer system 102 may instruct the web server 110 to present an online form to the potential insurance prospect after selecting the option to price a quote for a policy… see [0001] insurance coverage includes property coverage; [0040] covered product lines including building coverage),
the consent input indicative of consent by the user to be contacted regarding a product or service offer for the property through a consent request page of a digital selection form displayed on a mobile device of the user, via one or more of interactive communication or non-interactive communication with the mobile device of the user ([0072] the computer system 102 may instruct the web server 110 to present an online form to the potential insurance prospect after selecting the option to price a quote for a policy; [0074] The online webpage 800 may be presented to the online prospect via web server 110… the computer system 102 may instruct the web server 110 to present an online form to the prospect, which may include the data entry region 802… the web server 110 may operate in conjunction with customer service representative system 108 to launch an online call so that a representative can interact with the prospect);
receiving the consent input from the user on the consent request page of the digital selection form ([0073] In step 706, the computer system 102 uses the prospect information gathered in step 704 to determine prospect rankings and/or scores);
responsive to receiving the consent input, determining whether the user is associated with a lead profile ([0034] In step 304, the computer system 102 receives information about the prospects on the prospect list received in step 302; [0035] In step 306, the computer system 102 determines an underwriting affinity score for each prospect on the prospect list received in step 302; [0054] the computer system 102 determines the underwriting affinity score by using a predictive model to determine the probability of issue of a policy for a single product line (e.g., for a new prospect) or of a policy for a multiple product line (e.g., for a prospect that already has an existing policy for a product line)… see [0072] if the prospect has a pre-existing account or policy with the insurance company, the prospect may log into an online account or profile via the webpage);
responsive to determining the user is not associated with a lead profile for the user, generating a lead profile for the user comprising data associated with the user and the consent input ([0054] the computer system 102 determines the underwriting affinity score by using a predictive model to determine the probability of issue of a policy for a single product line (e.g., for a new prospect) or of a policy for a multiple product line (e.g., for a prospect that already has an existing policy for a product line)… see [0020] methods for identifying new leads; [0072] the computer system 102 compiles prospect lists and information from one or more sources including internal databases, and the compiled prospect lists and information are used by the computer system 102 or a predictive model to score and/or rank the prospects) (Information regarding prospects/leads that is stored in a database and retrieved from said database for subsequent analysis is a lead profile);
sending a message to a mobile device of the user, wherein the message presents the user with an option of being connected to an agent to discuss the product or service offer for the property ([0074] The computer system 102 may also control the presentation of the notification region 804… the notification region 804 may include one or more links… if the prospect clicks on the notification region 804, the web server 110 may operate in conjunction with customer service representative system 108 to launch an online call or chat application, so that a live customer service representative can interact with the prospect); and
responsive to the user selecting the option of being connected to the agent, routing the user to the agent based on the lead profile ([0074] if the prospect clicks on the notification region 804, the web server 110 may operate in conjunction with customer service representative system 108 to launch an online call or chat application, so that a live customer service representative can interact with the prospect);
But does not explicitly disclose responsive to the user not selecting the option of being connected to the agent, sending one or more further messages presenting the user with the option of being connected to the agent on a pre-determined schedule until (i) a pre-determined duration of time expires or (ii) the user selects the option of being connected to the agent within the pre-determined duration of time.
Desai, on the other hand, teaches responsive to the user not selecting the option of being connected to the agent, sending one or more further messages presenting the user with the option of being connected to the agent on a pre-determined schedule until (i) a pre-determined duration of time expires or (ii) the user selects the option of being connected to the agent within the pre-determined duration of time ([0024] The lead nurturing system 124 may automatically send a message to the lead to imitate or otherwise impersonate a human response… if a response from the lead is not received at the lead nurturing system 124, the lead nurturing system 124 may send a follow-up message at one or more specified time intervals until either a number of messages sent exceeds a threshold or the lead responds to the message.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran, responsive to receiving the consent input, determining whether the user is associated with a lead profile, and responsive to the user not selecting the option of being connected to the agent, sending one or more further messages presenting the user with the option of being connected to the agent on a pre-determined schedule until (i) a pre-determined duration of time expires or (ii) the user selects the option of being connected to the agent within the pre-determined duration of time, as taught by Desai, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Virdhagriswaran, to include the teachings of Desai, in order for marketplaces to maintain the interest of potential clients in products and services, and take advantage of opportunities to turn users into clients (Desai, [0001-0002]).
Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virdhagriswaran in view of Desai, and further in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2020/0272763 A1 to Brannon et al., hereinafter Brannon.
Regarding Claim 3, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: responsive to the user not selecting the option of being connected to the agent, request a renewed consent input from the user within a pre-determined time prior to expiration of the pre-determined duration of time; and receive the renewed consent input from the user ([0060] offering a new or updated insurance policy to a prospect when the prospect has a preexisting insurance policy that is about to expire may be timely, whereas the same offer made at a time when the prospect's preexisting policy still has a term of several months may not be timely. Thus, the timeliness parameter may be positive for a prospect with a preexisting insurance policy that is due to expire in two weeks, whereas the timeliness parameter may be negative for a prospect with an insurance policy that is due to expire in nine months);
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the renewed consent input restarts the pre-determined duration of time the user may be contacted.
Brannon, on the other hand, discloses wherein the renewed consent input restarts the pre-determined duration of time the user may be contacted ([0786] the system is configured to provide an interface configured to provide one or more periodic reminders regarding the data subject’s right to withdraw to previously given consent (e.g., every 6 months) as well as refresh consent when appropriate (e.g., the system may be configured to elicit updated consent in cases where particular previously consented to processing is used for a new purpose or a particular amount of time has elapsed since consent was given)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran and Desai, wherein the renewed consent input restarts the pre-determined duration of time the user may be contacted, as taught by Brannon, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Virdhagriswaran and Desai, to include the teachings of Brannon, in order to improve visited site quality through analysis of visitor behavior, as well as to remember visitor preferences and track people across websites to deliver targeted advertising (Brannon, [0591]).
Regarding Claim 17, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI messaging system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: request the consent input from the user through a consent box to be selected by the user or a digital signature box to be signed by the user on the consent request page of the digital selection form ([0088] the client relations manager 126 may be configured to accept client input through an input form. The input form may include requests for information such as gender, age, known current medical conditions and current medications. In some embodiments, the input form may further ask the client for their contact information so that a call center representative may follow up with their query; [0114] The user interface 220 may provide the appropriate inputs allowing the agent to submit a call request to the application server 124 to indicate that a call is desired) (The input form of Dudarev is a UI element that solicits user input for the purpose of being contacted in the future regarding a product or service);
But does not explicitly disclose requesting consent through a consent box to be selected by the user or a digital signature box to be signed by the user.
Brannon, on the other hand, teaches requesting consent through a consent box to be selected by the user or a digital signature box to be signed by the user ([0889] particular interfaces may utilize different arrangements and input types in order to attempt to obtain consent from end-users. FIG. 62, for example, depicts an exemplary cookie banner 6200, which may, for example, appear on any suitable portion of webpage... the banner 6200 may appear on a user’s initial visit to a particular webpage; see [Fig. 62] depicting the interactive portion of the banner 6205 as an interactive UI element).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran and Desai, requesting consent through a consent box to be selected by the user or a digital signature box to be signed by the user, as taught by Brannon, for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 3.
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virdhagriswaran in view of Desai, and further in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2017/0359710 A1 to Dudarev et al., hereinafter Dudarev.
Regarding Claim 4, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: responsive to the user selecting the option of being connected to the agent, route the user to the agent based on the lead profile and an agent profile of the agent to initiate a voice call session ([0035-0036] a prospect’s underwriting affinity score is based on demographics including the industry of the prospect, and the location of the prospect; [0074] if the prospect clicks on the notification region 804, the web server 110 may operate in conjunction with customer service representative system 108 to launch an online call or chat application, so that a live customer service representative can interact with the prospect);
But does not explicitly disclose gather inbound call data from the voice call session between the user and the agent; and generate one or more bind metrics for the agent profile of the agent based on the inbound call data.
Dudarev, on the other hand, discloses gather inbound call data from the voice call session between the user and the agent ([0118] By routing the call through the application server, a record of the call and the interaction (engagement) may be maintained. In some cases, the conversation may be recorded and a text transcript may be generated for quality assurance); and
generate one or more bind metrics for the agent profile of the agent based on the inbound call data ([0134] The messaging system 120 can select a qualified user account with a preferred record to receive the engagement notification. The preferred record can be identified based on one or more factors, such as performance of the agent; [0135] the preferred record can include a performance record with a highest sales record. The sales record can be determined from the sales by an agent within a certain time period, such as the most recent 30 or 60 days, or can be determined from an average sale over a number of engagements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran and Desai, transfer one or more rewards to the referral location based on reception of the consent input from the user at the referral location, as taught by Dudarev, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Virdhagriswaran and Desai, to include the teachings of Dudarev, in order to minimize delays in a consumer obtaining a product or service for a desired product or service, as well as increase the likelihood of a successful sale (Dudarev, [0003-0004]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virdhagriswaran in view of Desai, and further in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2012/0059662 A1 to Huisman, hereinafter Huisman.
Regarding Claim 5, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran does not explicitly disclose wherein the message presents the user with an option of being connected to the agent at a later date and time, and wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: responsive to the user selecting the option of being connected to the agent at the later date and time, schedule a time to route the user to the agent for a callback based on the later date and time.
Huisman, on the other hand, teaches wherein the message presents the user with an option of being connected to the agent at a later date and time ([0065] if the lead development step is a “call” step, the ALP user places the call and displays the script to be read in the event that the ALP user gets through to the intended lead… if the call fails because… (4) the lead is out of town, the user may determine when the lead will return and press the OOT (“Out of Town”) button, wherein the call may be rescheduled for instance, one business day after the return), and
wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: responsive to the user selecting the option of being connected to the agent at the later date and time, schedule a time to route the user to the agent for a callback based on the later date and time ([0065] if the lead development step is a “call” step, the ALP user places the call and displays the script to be read in the event that the ALP user gets through to the intended lead… if the call fails because… (4) the lead is out of town, the user may determine when the lead will return and press the OOT (“Out of Town”) button, wherein the call may be rescheduled for instance, one business day after the return; [0067] the system notes the date, the time, the caller, the campaign and any notes associated with this step and automatically schedules the next step for the appropriate time, based on the campaign).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran and Desai, wherein the message presents the user with an option of being connected to the agent at a later date and time, and wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: responsive to the user selecting the option of being connected to the agent at the later date and time, schedule a time to route the user to the agent for a callback based on the later date and time, as taught by Huisman, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Virdhagriswaran and Desai, to include the teachings of Huisman, in order to improve communication channels available to potential leads at a low cost (Huisman, [0010]).
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virdhagriswaran in view of Desai, and further in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2022/0245661 A1 to Mimassi, hereinafter Mimassi.
Regarding Claim 8, Virdhagriswaran and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: request the consent input from the user when the user is at a referral location associated with the property ([0072] a potential insurance prospect may visit the webpage of the insurer, hosted/served on the web server 110, and select an online option to price a quote for an insurance policy… In step 704, the computer system 102 gathers relevant information about the prospect… the computer system 102 may instruct the web server 110 to present an online form to the potential insurance prospect after selecting the option to price a quote for a policy… see [0001] insurance coverage includes property coverage; [0040] covered product lines including building coverage);
But does not explicitly disclose transfer one or more rewards to the referral location based on reception of the consent input from the user at the referral location.
Mimassi, on the other hand, teaches transfer one or more rewards to the referral location based on reception of the consent input from the user at the referral location ([0111] a commercial concierge account referring a user to other businesses… the referral may take one of several forms on the customer’s concierge application, including an in-application referral link, or QR code scanning… The customer may need to accept the referral or reservation on their own application 2640… see [0082] automation server 3710 sends the referral to referral engine 2551 where it may be stored in referral database 2560, and compensation, if any, may be dispersed to the registered commercial concierge operating automation application 3710 on their device 2520; [0118] a compensation may also be deposited or recorded in a smart wallet application 3360, hosted on the same device as the concierge application 2522 or on a different device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran and Desai, transfer one or more rewards to the referral location based on reception of the consent input from the user at the referral location, as taught by Mimassi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Virdhagriswaran and Desai, to include the teachings of Mimassi, in order to entice customers and reward them for using the system, as well as help customers find what they need and refer the, to businesses (Mimassi, [0011-0012]).
Regarding Claim 9, Virdhagriswaran, Desai and Mimassi teach the limitations of claim 8.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions further cause the AI system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: request the consent input from the user when the user is at the referral location associated with the property via one or more of interactive communication or non-interactive communication with the mobile device of the user ([0072] a potential insurance prospect may visit the webpage of the insurer, hosted/served on the web server 110, and select an online option to price a quote for an insurance policy… In step 704, the computer system 102 gathers relevant information about the prospect… the computer system 102 may instruct the web server 110 to present an online form to the potential insurance prospect after selecting the option to price a quote for a policy … see [0001] insurance coverage includes property coverage; [0040] covered product lines including building coverage) (Only one of interactive communication and non-interactive communication must be present, according to the limitation reciting “via one or more of…”. Accordingly, Virdhagriswaran has been cited as teaching interactive communication in this case, since the completion of the online form requires user input).
Regarding Claim 10, Virdhagriswaran, Desai and Mimassi teach the limitations of claim 9.
Virdhagriswaran does not explicitly disclose wherein interactive communication comprises scan of a code or selection of a link via the mobile device to generate the consent input on a graphical user interface of the mobile device, and wherein non-interactive communication comprises a geospatial message sent to the mobile device based on sensing the user within a geospatial area of the referral location.
Mimassi, on the other hand, teaches wherein interactive communication comprises scan of a code or selection of a link via the mobile device to generate the consent input on a graphical user interface of the mobile device ([0111] a commercial concierge account referring a user to other businesses… the referral may take one of several forms on the customer’s concierge application, including QR code scanning… The customer may need to accept the referral or reservation on their own application 2640), and
wherein non-interactive communication comprises a geospatial message sent to the mobile device based on sensing the user within a geospatial area of the referral location ([0116] the referral may take one of several forms on the customer’s mobile device, including temporal proximity to a registered commercial concierge or business with such a concierge registered to it 3130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran and Desai, wherein interactive communication comprises scan of a code or selection of a link via the mobile device to generate the consent input on a graphical user interface of the mobile device, and wherein non-interactive communication comprises a geospatial message sent to the mobile device based on sensing the user within a geospatial area of the referral location, as taught by Mimassi, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Regarding Claim 11, Virdhagriswaran, Desai and Mimassi teach the limitations of claim 10.
Virdhagriswaran does not explicitly disclose wherein the code comprises a QR code, and wherein the link is embedded on a digital platform associated with the referral location.
Mimassi, on the other hand, teaches wherein the code comprises a QR code ([0111] a commercial concierge account referring a user to other businesses… the referral may take one of several forms on the customer’s concierge application, including QR code scanning), and
wherein the link is embedded on a digital platform associated with the referral location ([0111] a commercial concierge account referring a user to other businesses… the referral may take one of several forms on the customer’s concierge application, including an in-application referral link).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran and Desai, wherein the code comprises a QR code, and wherein the link is embedded on a digital platform associated with the referral location, as taught by Mimassi, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 8.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Virdhagriswaran in view of Desai, and further in view of U.S Patent Application No. 2023/0111633 A1 to Paruchuri, hereinafter Paruchuri.
Regarding Claim 15, Dudarev and Desai teach the limitations of claim 1.
Virdhagriswaran further discloses wherein machine readable instructions further cause the AI messaging system to perform at least the following when executed by the one or more processors: assign a lead score to lead profile of the user, wherein the lead score is based on an amount of one or more interactions between the user and the AI system over a period of time and timing of the one or more interactions ([0060] the computer system 102 determines a favorable context score for each prospect… the first parameter is a timeliness parameter, and represents whether the time is appropriate for making the policy offer to the prospect. For example, offering a new or updated insurance policy to a prospect when the prospect has a preexisting insurance policy that is about to expire may be timely; [0061] the second parameter is a warmness parameter… created based on customer satisfaction scores and instances of positive service and sales activities with the prospect within specified time window),
wherein the one or more interactions are indicative of a response by the user to the message or the one or more further messages ([0061] the second parameter is a warmness parameter… created based on customer satisfaction scores and instances of positive service and sales activities with the prospect within specified time window… see [0045][0049] for prospects that currently have an existing relationship with the insurer, prospect parameters of interest include satisfaction with respect to prospect-initiated service and policy-related calls/interactions with the insurer) (Determination of user satisfaction occurs in response to the prospect-initiated service and policy-related calls/interactions);
But does not explicitly disclose wherein a speedier interaction is assigned a higher lead score than a lengthier interaction, and wherein no interaction is assigned a lower score than at least one interaction by the user.
Paruchuri, on the other hand, discloses wherein a speedier interaction is assigned a higher lead score than a lengthier interaction ([0056] an optimal policy that optimizes reward such as a positive reward when the customer 214 provides a positive feedback on the asked attribute, a strongly negative reward if the customer 214 quits the conversation or when the conversation may be long or lengthy; [0057] if the conversation may be long or lengthy then penalize the reward), and
wherein no interaction is assigned a lower score than at least one interaction by the user ([0057] the reward may be based on customer feedback… if the customer leaves the conversation then reward may be negative) (Note: A negative value is lower than a penalized positive value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system, as taught by Virdhagriswaran and Desai, wherein a speedier interaction is assigned a higher lead score than a lengthier interaction, as taught by Paruchuri, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Virdhagriswaran and Desai, to include the teachings of Paruchuri, in order to increase sales conversion rates with customers in Business-to-Business (B2B) sales (Paruchuri, [00001]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S Patent No. 11,138,669 B1 to Doyle et al. – computer-assisted method for providing requotations for insurance coverage to a list of insurance leads, using a regression model.
U.S Patent Application No. 2013/0204645 A1 to Lehman et al. – Methods and systems for connecting mobile client devices to a native application capable of rendering insurance quoting services, on-line insurance policy services, etc.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/VICTORIA E. FRUNZI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689 2/6/2026